The translation "Supreme Court" is misleading. The BGH is the second highest German court. The highest one is the BVG, the Bundesverfassungsgericht, i.e. the court deciding things regarding the German constitution. The BHG is however the highest court you can come up to using appeals for concrete things. The BVG only takes constitutional stuff and may decide to ignore you.
Industry-wide patching it is. And now that security researchers are finally looking at hardware again, expect more of these. For one thing is sure: Intel has been doing an exceptionally bad job the last decade or so, possibly because they believed to have won the game.
Quite possible. Fortunately I am a technology consultant, not a management one. So while I do not tell my customers processes and tools are mostly bullshit, I sometimes have a chance to demonstrate it. Of course, a high daily rate helps because then they take you seriously. But overall, I think you are quire right and it is the reason why corporate IT typically is a mess and often going for a train-wreck. We have customers that cannot even implement basic things anymore because their IT is so wrecked by constant new things and doing things "better" as suggested by some business consultants that do not care one bit about the well-being of their customers. What I actually expect is some Fortune-500 folding because of IT problems pretty soon. Sony regrettably survived, but apparently it was close. I know of at least one more where it was a really close thing recently. This stupidity really has to stop, but we need a "reference catastrophe" or two before we can make that happen.
"People over processes". That is not anything a large organization can do at the level the actual work is done, with very rare exceptions. I am grateful for this "agile" nonsense though, because it lets me run a development project as an one-person show (plus one very good manager to keep track of things and sell this to upper management) by claiming this is "agile". This way I do not have to do waterfall stuff in a project that actually redefines itself all the time. Fortunately, I do the redefining, so this actually works. No team decisions, as there is no team.
And, while somewhat surprising to me, I find Brooks is still right: You need a strong chief engineer to run things on the tech side for maximum efficiency. Too many engineer are wimps that cannot tell management how things really are. And too many managers are too. That is how projects get screwed up.
Well, for starters, unlike you I am not a psycho, so I do not fail at being human. That alone already puts me far ahead of you. And second, since you seem to need being toxic here and trying to put people down, I can only conclude that you are a really pathetic looser, money or not. Incidentally, you read far too much into that study, possibly again in a desperate attempt to convince yourself of your imagined superiority. In actuality, your whole set of comments drips desperation. Go troll somebody else, you are too easy and seeing your inept attempts makes me sad.
Amplifying from that (and I realize I was rude, my apologies), the thing is it is not actually possible to determine you are or you are not in a simulation, unless some very specific conditions are met. First, and most important, a proof is only possible if the human mind is at least somewhat independent of the simulation. Otherwise, the simulation would (if at least somewhat intelligently designed) determine what is going on and simply modify the minds attempting to prove anything to make them fail. So, unless you have that independent (and that would in some sense mean "extra physical", as the simulation controls physics) mind, no such proof either way is possible, as the "is a simulation" cannot be ruled out. However, proving existence of that "extra physical" mind is basically impossible if we are in a simulation. Hence that angle does not work. That means that if we are in a simulation we have no chance of proofing anything reliably. However, if we are not in a simulation, we cannot trust any proof for exactly the same reason as we cannot distinguish the situation from being in a simulation.
This "true randomness" makes no difference at all, as "true random" is actually a philosophical thing, not a mathematical or physical one. For Mathematics, we only have "not predictable before generation" and for Physics, we only have that with the additional qualifier of "...as far as we know", both with added statistical properties. Hence if we are in a simulation, all these numbers could come from a pre-existing list and we would never know. There simply is no test for that. There is no way to determine of a list of "random" values exists in two places at the same time when you only have one of the lists.
Maybe. In that case they have no clue what they are talking about, though. Bias is not a factor (unless total) in whether something is random or not. In actual reality, just use an entropy pool, a cryptographic whitener and put in 1000 bits or so of entropy you are good. This "discovery" is irrelevant nonsense.
It is in fact trivial that any given set of numbers is not random. You can only say that a source of data produces data that is not predictable before it has produced the data. That property does not transfer to the data produced once it has been produced. All you have there is that it is not possible to infer the data from an accurate description of the source that produced it. But that is quite enough. In fact, for all relevant applications you do not even need "random". "Not predictable" is quite enough and "random" is actually a non-concept in Mathematics and Cryptography and just used as a convenient shorthand.
No. They are the same. "Randomness" is not a property of data. It is a property of a data-source, just as you say. But since they do not even know that quantum process based RNGs have been around for very long and are cheap to do in addition, anything said by them is likely nonsense.
A bias is not an indicator for things not being truly random. A bias is just a bias and, unless you use a cryptographic whitener for post-processing, you always have some detectable bias in output from physical processes.
They are also really cheap to do. And, from physical principles, part of the noise generated is tunneling ("true random" if Quantum Theory is exact, which it most likely is not) and part is thermal (good enough for even hardcore cryptography). Hence this "story" is a mixture of lies and things that are irrelevant.
"We do not understand how it works" is not the same as "provable random numbers". Any proof here comes with "if quantum theory is exact". Now, it is known that Quantum Theory and Relativity are inconsistent, yet both are exceptionally well verified. It is therefore exceptionally likely that Quantum Theory is not an exact model of reality. Incidentally, it is not possible to prove that any specific bit of data is "random" either, Mathematics does not allow that and Physics even less so.
Also, just use a standard, decades old Zener or reversed-PN noise generator and get a significant amount of quantum noise in there for $10 or so in total.
Yes, "he did seem" is exactly it. Why not a clear, clean and completely unambiguous denial? The only other option I see is that he was not sure. I don't see how that would be any better. Now, I do not actually think they do this monitoring permanently, but they seem to be doing something and the Zuck seems to be unwilling to tell what that is. It may be that they even only listen in if you actively record. That would be bad enough.
You must be one of these "toxic" people I keep hearing so much about. Complete losers that try to elevate themselves by putting others down. Pathetic. Know that you put a big grin on my face.
Valid question, but the answer is simple: There may be encrypted stuff you still want to snoop the passwords for or you may not be interested in the machine itself, but may want to snoop on conversations.
Thanks for demonstrating my point. I do hope nature really fucks you over, you deserve it. And, side note, I am not subject to the 2nd world healthcare system that the US has, I have access to real healthcare and I do not even need to be rich for that.
Slashdot Mirror
The translation "Supreme Court" is misleading. The BGH is the second highest German court. The highest one is the BVG, the Bundesverfassungsgericht, i.e. the court deciding things regarding the German constitution. The BHG is however the highest court you can come up to using appeals for concrete things. The BVG only takes constitutional stuff and may decide to ignore you.
There is absolutely no requirement for "blunt". But "honest" is required or everything hoes to hell.
Industry-wide patching it is. And now that security researchers are finally looking at hardware again, expect more of these. For one thing is sure: Intel has been doing an exceptionally bad job the last decade or so, possibly because they believed to have won the game.
You seem to be unaware that modern computers do not have a BIOS anymore and that it gets emulated by UEFI.
Quite possible. Fortunately I am a technology consultant, not a management one. So while I do not tell my customers processes and tools are mostly bullshit, I sometimes have a chance to demonstrate it. Of course, a high daily rate helps because then they take you seriously. But overall, I think you are quire right and it is the reason why corporate IT typically is a mess and often going for a train-wreck. We have customers that cannot even implement basic things anymore because their IT is so wrecked by constant new things and doing things "better" as suggested by some business consultants that do not care one bit about the well-being of their customers. What I actually expect is some Fortune-500 folding because of IT problems pretty soon. Sony regrettably survived, but apparently it was close. I know of at least one more where it was a really close thing recently. This stupidity really has to stop, but we need a "reference catastrophe" or two before we can make that happen.
"People over processes". That is not anything a large organization can do at the level the actual work is done, with very rare exceptions. I am grateful for this "agile" nonsense though, because it lets me run a development project as an one-person show (plus one very good manager to keep track of things and sell this to upper management) by claiming this is "agile". This way I do not have to do waterfall stuff in a project that actually redefines itself all the time. Fortunately, I do the redefining, so this actually works. No team decisions, as there is no team.
And, while somewhat surprising to me, I find Brooks is still right: You need a strong chief engineer to run things on the tech side for maximum efficiency. Too many engineer are wimps that cannot tell management how things really are. And too many managers are too. That is how projects get screwed up.
Have they hired from kindergarden or what?
Well, for starters, unlike you I am not a psycho, so I do not fail at being human. That alone already puts me far ahead of you. And second, since you seem to need being toxic here and trying to put people down, I can only conclude that you are a really pathetic looser, money or not. Incidentally, you read far too much into that study, possibly again in a desperate attempt to convince yourself of your imagined superiority. In actuality, your whole set of comments drips desperation. Go troll somebody else, you are too easy and seeing your inept attempts makes me sad.
Amplifying from that (and I realize I was rude, my apologies), the thing is it is not actually possible to determine you are or you are not in a simulation, unless some very specific conditions are met. First, and most important, a proof is only possible if the human mind is at least somewhat independent of the simulation. Otherwise, the simulation would (if at least somewhat intelligently designed) determine what is going on and simply modify the minds attempting to prove anything to make them fail. So, unless you have that independent (and that would in some sense mean "extra physical", as the simulation controls physics) mind, no such proof either way is possible, as the "is a simulation" cannot be ruled out. However, proving existence of that "extra physical" mind is basically impossible if we are in a simulation. Hence that angle does not work. That means that if we are in a simulation we have no chance of proofing anything reliably. However, if we are not in a simulation, we cannot trust any proof for exactly the same reason as we cannot distinguish the situation from being in a simulation.
This "true randomness" makes no difference at all, as "true random" is actually a philosophical thing, not a mathematical or physical one. For Mathematics, we only have "not predictable before generation" and for Physics, we only have that with the additional qualifier of "...as far as we know", both with added statistical properties. Hence if we are in a simulation, all these numbers could come from a pre-existing list and we would never know. There simply is no test for that. There is no way to determine of a list of "random" values exists in two places at the same time when you only have one of the lists.
I am just stating a fact. Please read up on theories before you ask for obvious characteristics.
There is no need for that.
No. And if you have to ask, you have not understood the question you asked.
Maybe. In that case they have no clue what they are talking about, though. Bias is not a factor (unless total) in whether something is random or not. In actual reality, just use an entropy pool, a cryptographic whitener and put in 1000 bits or so of entropy you are good. This "discovery" is irrelevant nonsense.
It is in fact trivial that any given set of numbers is not random. You can only say that a source of data produces data that is not predictable before it has produced the data. That property does not transfer to the data produced once it has been produced. All you have there is that it is not possible to infer the data from an accurate description of the source that produced it. But that is quite enough. In fact, for all relevant applications you do not even need "random". "Not predictable" is quite enough and "random" is actually a non-concept in Mathematics and Cryptography and just used as a convenient shorthand.
No. They are the same. "Randomness" is not a property of data. It is a property of a data-source, just as you say. But since they do not even know that quantum process based RNGs have been around for very long and are cheap to do in addition, anything said by them is likely nonsense.
A bias is not an indicator for things not being truly random. A bias is just a bias and, unless you use a cryptographic whitener for post-processing, you always have some detectable bias in output from physical processes.
They are also really cheap to do. And, from physical principles, part of the noise generated is tunneling ("true random" if Quantum Theory is exact, which it most likely is not) and part is thermal (good enough for even hardcore cryptography). Hence this "story" is a mixture of lies and things that are irrelevant.
"We do not understand how it works" is not the same as "provable random numbers". Any proof here comes with "if quantum theory is exact". Now, it is known that Quantum Theory and Relativity are inconsistent, yet both are exceptionally well verified. It is therefore exceptionally likely that Quantum Theory is not an exact model of reality. Incidentally, it is not possible to prove that any specific bit of data is "random" either, Mathematics does not allow that and Physics even less so.
Also, just use a standard, decades old Zener or reversed-PN noise generator and get a significant amount of quantum noise in there for $10 or so in total.
Yes, "he did seem" is exactly it. Why not a clear, clean and completely unambiguous denial? The only other option I see is that he was not sure. I don't see how that would be any better. Now, I do not actually think they do this monitoring permanently, but they seem to be doing something and the Zuck seems to be unwilling to tell what that is. It may be that they even only listen in if you actively record. That would be bad enough.
You must be one of these "toxic" people I keep hearing so much about. Complete losers that try to elevate themselves by putting others down. Pathetic. Know that you put a big grin on my face.
The important data leaks though are usually done by people.
Very much so, yes.
Nice, indeed!
Valid question, but the answer is simple: There may be encrypted stuff you still want to snoop the passwords for or you may not be interested in the machine itself, but may want to snoop on conversations.
You have no clue about power electronics design. "Double conversion" just filters better, it does not "insulate completely" at all.
Thanks for demonstrating my point. I do hope nature really fucks you over, you deserve it. And, side note, I am not subject to the 2nd world healthcare system that the US has, I have access to real healthcare and I do not even need to be rich for that.